PEOPLE v SORIANO
doubt and sentenced him to death.
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with raping his then 12-year-old
daughter AAA some time between October 2000 to December
11th, 2001 at Bambang, Nueva Vizacaya.
The Information specified Article 266-A of RA 8353, Section I,
paragraphs (a) and (c).
The appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA who narrated the harrowing
ordeal from the first time to the last time on December 11th,
2001. The father eventually impregnated her and she
subsequently gave birth to a baby boy. This testimony was
corroborated by her aunt CCC, as she observed that AAA was
sick and vomiting. She then accompanied AAA to a doctor
where they learned that she was pregnant. AAA then revealed to
CCC and the doctor (Dr. Cortez) that it was her father who
impregnated her.
The appellant denied the charges. He claimed that from Monday
to Friday, with the exception of his son DDD, his children would
sleep at the house of their aunt CCC because his wife works in
Manila and cannot take care of the kids. The kids only come
home on weekends.
The defense presented appellant’s wife and victim’s mother,
EEE, who presented an affidavit of desistance allegedly
executed by AAA.
The trial court still found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
The appellant questioned the ruling on the ground that there
were inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony as to what happened
in the first rape incident. He argues that it was not given notice
on what really happened on whether appellant removed her
undergarments prior to the sexual act. He also makes issue that
the trial court disregarded AAA’s alleged affidavit of desistance.
The CA affirmed the trial court and ruled that AAA’s testimony
was straightforward, consistent, and unshaken by cross-
examination. The alleged minor inconsistency did not tarnish her
credibility. It ultimately ruled that the affidavit of desistance
could not exonerate him especially since AAA refused to
validate the due execution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the courts failed to appreciate the inconsistencies
in AAA’s statements? NO.
Whether or not the courts failed to take into consideration
AAA’s affidavit of desistance? NO.
RULING:
Appellant argues that AAA could not remember if whether he
pulled down her panties. This inconsistency is merely a minor
and insignificant detail which does not even pertain to the
gragvamen of the crime. Discrepancies that refer only to minor
details and not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the
veracity or detract from the credibility of a witness’ declaration
as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the
whole.

It is too much to expect from a 13-year-old girl to remember
each and every detail of the fate she suffered. Even the most
candid of witnesses make erroneous and inconsistent statements,
especially when they are young and easily overwhelmed by the
court’s atmosphere. This is even expected when the victim is
recounting painful details.
AAA’s testimony was straightforward, consistent, and unshaken
by cross-examination. Appellant has failed to come up with any
plausible reason why AAA would fabricate a story of rape.
The Court looks with disfavor on affidavits of desistance. In
People v Junio, the appellant’s argument that the affidavit of
desistance by complainant, who was assisted by her mother,
supported the “inherent incredibility of prosecution’s evidence”
is specious.
Retractions are generally unreliable and looked upon with
considerable disfavor by the courts. The unreliability is shown
by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the
process of having the accused arrested, identifying him, and
having her body parts physically examined, the victim would
suddenly turn around and declare that after deliberation, she
finds that the same does not merit criminal prosecution.
The retraction is an afterthought which should not be given
probative value. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the
testimony taken before the court simply because the witness who
has given it later on changed her mind for one reason or another.
This would make a solemn trial a mockery and place the
investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.
It was EEE, AAA’s mother, who presented the affidavit of
desistance. AAA, however, refused to validate its due execution.
EEE, admitted that she had personal knowledge of the rape by
her husband and that the affidavit of desistance was made on the
condition that appellant would leave his family.
The Information charged more than one offense in violation of
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. Considering that the appellant did not object to the
multiple offenses, the Court may convict the appellant of as
many as are charged and proved.
However, both the trial court and the appellate court merely
found the appellant guilty of “multiple rape” without specifying
the number of rapes that appellant is guilty of. Although
appellant would still have been sentenced to death even if one
count of rape was proven, this is still important because this
would have bearing on appellant’s civil liability. There is no
such crime as “multiple rape.”
In this case, the appellant is guilty of two counts of rape qualified
by the victim’s age (below 18) and the relationship he holds with
her (he is her father). These qualifying circumstances were
alleged and established, the death penalty is proper. However
this has been reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole because of RA 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Death
Penalty).